Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chhagan Lal And Ors vs Ram Chandra And Ors (2025:Rj-Jp:28636) on 28 July, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:28636]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2686/2018
1. Chhagan Lal S/o Pratap Ji, aged 48 years
2. Rekha D/o Chhagan Lal, aged 19 years
3. Jairaj S/o Chhagan Lal, aged 18 years
4. Shimla D/o Chhagan Lal, aged 17 years
5. Rajpal S/o Chhagan Lal, aged 16 years
6. Anjali D/o Chhagan Lal, aged 14 years,
Appellant No. 4 To 6 Are Minor Through Their Father And
Natural Guardian Chhagan Lal S/o Pratap Ji All B/c Jat R/o
Village Bheru Kheda, Post Hanutia, Tehsil And Thana Bijay
Nagar, District Ajmer
----Claimants Appellants
Versus
1. Ram Chandra S/o Mishri Jat B/c Jat, R/o Village Bheru
Kheda, Post Hanutia, Tehsil And Thana Bijay Nagar,
District Ajmer Driver Motor Cycle No. Rj 36 Sk 1990
2. Hemraj S/o Nanda Ji B/c Gurjar, R/o Village Bheru Kheda,
Post Hanutia, Tehsil And Thana Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer
Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj 36 Sk 1990
3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office At
Ajmeri Gate, Beawer, District Ajmer Having Its Regional
Office At Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
Through Its Regional Manager Insurer Of Motor Cycle No.
Rj 36 Sk 1990, Policy No. 242404/31/2015/3995 Valid
From 05.01.2015 To 04.01.2016
----Non-claimants Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratap Singh Arya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment
28/07/2025
(Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28636] (2 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018]
1. Challenge in the instant misc. appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') has been made to the judgment dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.3), Beawar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 30/16 (197/16) whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants.
2. The facts borne out from pleadings are that the appellants/ claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal mentioning therein that on 05.12.2025 deceased Prem Devi was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-36-SK-1990 as a pillion rider from Bijay Nagar towards her Village. The said motorcycle was being driven by respondent no.1 in a fast speed and in a rash & negligent manner. At about 03:00 PM, when they reached on Beawer-Bijay Nagar Road at Sooti Kheda turn, at that time one unknown vehicle came from their back side and hit the motorcycle on which deceased was going. The unknown vehicle after hitting ran away from the place of incident. Due to the aforementioned accident deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. The appellants/ claimants claimed Rs.20,92,000/- as a compensation.
An FIR of the incident was lodged on 05.12.2015 on the same day with the Police Station Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer under Section 279, 304-A IPC, which was registered as FIR No.301/2015. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the unknown vehicle.
(Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (3 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018]
3. After effecting service of notices upon the respondents/non-claimants No.1 and 2, they did not appear as a result of which on 28.06.2016 ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them.
4. On effecting service of notice, the respondent/non- claimant No.3- Insurance Company filed written statement of denial.
5. The Claims Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.02.2018 dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants/ claimants.
6. Mr. Vinay Mathur, counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submits that the tribunal has grossly erred while deciding the issue no.1 in a manner that the deceased had not sustained any injuries due to the involvement of the vehicle under dispute. He submits that the deceased who was going as a pillion rider, fell from the motorcycle because of hit by the offending vehicle and sustained grievous head injuries. Counsel also submits that the deceased was immediately referred to the hospital, but as soon as she reached to the hospital due to grievous injury on her head, she died. On the same day post mortem of the dead body was conducted and as per the opinion of the doctor she had sustained frontal fracture of her skull due to which she died.
Counsel also submits that the learned tribunal relied upon the remarks made by the medical officer in the bottom of the post mortem report in which it has been stated that no visible physical injury was present in any part of the body. The Medical Officer opined the cause of death of Smt. Prem Devi as 'due to cardio pulmonary arrest following intracranial hemorrhage'. The learned tribunal by misinterpretation the remarks of the Medical (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (4 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018] Officer without appreciating the entire post mortem report reached to a conclusion that deceased died due to cardiac pulmonary arrest only.
Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in the post mortem report it has been clearly stated that there is an injury mark of 25x10 cm. present in the frontal bone of the head. The tribunal without looking/appreciating language of the Medical Officer and without any application of its judicial mind reached to a conclusion that there is no head injury to the deceased whereas there is clear remark by the Medical Officer that the deceased had sustained intracranial hemorrhage.
Counsel also submits that as per the definition of intracranial hemorrhage it is type of bleeding that occurs inside the skull (cranium) bleeding around or within the brain itself known as cerebral hemorrhage (or intracerebral hemorrhage) bleeding caused by a blood vessel in the brain that has leaked or ruptured (torn) is called a hemorrhagic stroke. In such circumstances it is crystal clear that the deceased who fell from the motorcycle sustained head injuries and died due to it.
Counsel further submits that the learned tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claim petition of the deceased has been moved under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In the claim petition the basic requirement is that the claimants are required to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident or not. From the bare perusal of the FIR and challan papers it is crystal clear that the deceased while going on the motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-36-SK-1990 fell from (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (5 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018] it and sustained grievous injuries. In such circumstances the death of the deceased falls under the purview of the provisions of section 163-A and there was no occasion with the learned tribunal to deny the rightful claim of the appellants.
Counsel also submits that the claimants proved the issue no.1 in their favour by bringing cogent evidence oral as well as documentary on record that the deceased Prem Devi sustained grievous injuries during the course of use of vehicle. The claimants have proved that Prem Devi has died while the vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 under the guidance and employment of respondent No.2.
Counsel also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not deciding the issue with regard to the quantum. It is pertinent to mention here that deceased at that time was about 43 years of age.
7. Mr. Pratap Singh Arya, counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal.
Counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company also submits that in the post mortem report (Ex.4), the Medial Jurist has made a specific mention that "No visible physical injury present in any part of body". In such circumstances, the claim of the claimant that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident is falsified because no any injury has been found on the body of the deceased. He further submits that as per the post mortem report (Ex.4), the cause of death is due to (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (6 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018] 'Cardio Pulmonary arrest following intracranial hemorrhage' which can be without any injury. He submits that the deceased died because of a natural death.
Counsel appearing for the respondent-non-claimant No.3- Insurance Company in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Lal & Ors. vs. Surjeet Singh and Ors., reported in 2005 (3) WLR (Raj.) 522, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the production of copy of charge-sheet is not a substantive piece of evidence and its production alone cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim petition to prove the fact of accident and involvement of the vehicle.
8. Considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties and gone through the entire material made available to the Court including the record of the claim petition.
9. The learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The issues framed by the Tribunal are as under:-
"1- vk;k fnukad 05-12-2015 dks le; fnu esa djhc 3%00 cts ekStk C;koj&fot;uxj ekxZ ij lwrh[ksM+k eksM ij iqfyl Fkkuk fot;uxj ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 us vius okgu eksVjlkbZfdy ua- vkj-ts- &36&,l-ds-&1990 dks rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i Jherh izsensoh dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ \ 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k Dyse ;kfpdk esa ekaxh xbZ eqvkotk jkf"k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k dh vizkFkhZx.k ds tokc izkFkZuki= esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (7 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018] 4- vk;k cjoDr nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la0&1 ds ikl iz"uxr okgu dks pykus dk oS/k o izHkkoh pkyd vuqKki= ugha Fkk\ 5- vuqrks'k \ "
10. As regards the issue No.1 the Tribunal has given its findings in para No.17 of the impugned judgment. The findings of the Tribunal are quoted as under:-
"17. bl izdkj gLrxr izdj.k esa e`rdk dh e`R;q lM+d nq?kZVuk esa eksVjlkbZfdy fxjus ls vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k gksuk crkbZ gS blds fy;s e`rdk dh iksLVeksVZu fjiksVZ izn"kZ&4 izLrqr dj iznf"kZr djokbZ gS bl iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ esa bfRryk tks iqfyl us nh] mlesa eksVjlkbZfdy ls fxjus ls "kjhj ij vkbZ pksVksa ls e`R;q gksuk crk;k fy[kk gS fdUrq MkDVj us viuh vksihfu;u esa fy[kk gS fd In my opinion cause of death of smt prem devi 43 year, Jat femail is due to cardia pulmonary arrest following Intracranial Haemarrage-- No visible physical Injury Present any part of body -- blls Li'V gS fd e`rdk dh e`R;q Cardiac Pulmonary arrest ls gksuk crk;k gS blds "kjhj ij dksbZ foftcy batjh ugha crkbZ gS tcfd izkFkhZ us eksVjlkbZfdy ds ihNs ls vKkr okgu }kjk Vddj ekjus ds dkj.k e`rdk ds flj ds cy eksVjlkbZfdy ls fxjus ls xaHkhj :i ls pksVxzLr gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i e`R;q gksuk crk;k gS ftldh rkbZn mDr iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ls ugha gksrh gSA blds vykok vU; dksbZ nLrkost izkFkhZx.k }kjk bl ckcr izLrqr ugha fd;s gSa ftlls U;k;ky; ds fouez erkuqlkj e`rdk dh e`R;q nq?kZVuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZ gks bls izkFkhZx.k lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA"
11. The Tribunal has given the aforesaid findings observing that there is no visible physical injury present in any part of body and therefore, the plea of the claimants that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained while falling from the motorcycle because of hit by an unknown vehicle, is not proved. (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (8 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018]
12. On perusal of the record, the Court finds that in the post mortem report (Ex.4), in Part-2 under the head of 'CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD' in Clause-3 there is a mention about an injury i.e. 'frontal hematoma of 25 x 10 cm. present'. In Clause-5 of the post mortem report, there is a mention of 'Hematoma 25 x 10 cm. Present in frontal brain.
In the beginning of the post mortem report (Ex.4), it has also been mentioned that when the deceased was brought to the hospital it was stated that he has died because of injuries sustained while falling from a motorcycle.
13. The fact regarding mention of frontal hematoma of 25x10 cm. present on the body of the deceased at two places in the post mortem report (Ex.4) is an evidence available on the record to prove the fact that the deceased sustained injuries, though the injury may not be physically visible.
14. As per the port mortem report (Ex.4), the cause of death of the deceased is 'due to Cardio Pulmonary arrest following intracranial hemorrhage'.
The intracranial hemorrhage refers to any form of bleeding within the skull. It can result from trauma, vascular abnormalities, hypertension, other medical conditions. Intracranial hemorrhage either traumatic or non-traumatic. A traumatic clause includes head trauma resulting from falls, vehicular accidents, or physical assault. Intracranial hemorrhage is type of bleeding that occurs in the skull i.e. bleeding around or within the brain itself known as cerebral hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage. The bleeding caused by a blood vessel in the brain that has ruptured is called as hemorrhagic stroke.
(Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (9 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018]
15. There is an evidence of the claimants that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained while falling from a motorcycle. There is no contrary evidence except the plea of the Insurance Company that there is no visible physical injury present on the body of the deceased. The learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has not taken into consideration the mentioning of 'frontal hematoma of 25x10 cm. present' at two places in the post mortem report (Ex.4) and so also the evidence of the claimants and the fact that when the deceased was taken to the hospital, it was intimated that he has died because of the injuries sustained while falling from the motorcycle.
16. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the complete material /evidence available on the record and so also the causes of intracranial hemorrhage, which is the cause of the death which may result from falls. Hence the observations and the findings of the learned Tribunal in regard to issue No.1 are set aside.
17. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for passing an award afresh after taking into consideration the evidence available on the record and so also the observations given above by this Court.
18. The parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 21.08.2025.
19. Looking to the fact that the claim petition was filed on 18.05.2018, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to conclude the proceedings and dispose of the claim petition afresh as early (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28636] (10 of 10) [CMA-2686/2018] as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of submitting a certified copy of this judgment.
20. The misc. appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants is disposed of.
21. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar (Downloaded on 02/08/2025 at 12:08:12 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)